3.If we are a descendent of the monkeys why monkeys are always present on the earth ?Because we are not a descendent from monkeys of our decade because you must to know that monkeys and humans are from a same species who are not on earth now.

4.The evolution theory don't explain the apparition of the life on earth therefore this is false.That is not the goal of evolution theory you must learn the differences between abiogenesis and evolution theory.Evolution theory explain the evolution of species and abiogenesis explain the apparition of the life on the earth.

5.How the mutations can create a new species ?That take billions of years , the DNA have a mutation around 0,9% (for humans) by generation.Conclusion : that is the reason who explain why a new specie will never come from the stomach of a woman.

Maybe not funny, but my favorites are irreducible complexity and the fine tuning argument. These are my favorites because they are the most clever and compelling arguments that creationists have come up with, yet they are still fatally flawed. When the best of the best don't cut it, there's little reason to waste any time or effort on the rest, which range from the merely poor to the profoundly stupid.

Maybe not funny, but my favorites are irreducible complexity and the fine tuning argument.

I think that the most important factor in those arguments is the direction they are coming from. Notice that creationists aren't trying to prove that the Biblical story is true through evidence; they are trying to imply that it is the only option left if you can sow sufficient doubt in the alternatives. It is really just an extension of the Argument from Design.

Person A: so you believe that god made the universe? What evidence do you have?Person B: just look at that night sky!!!

In the old days (ie. before we had the fossils) people pointed to ancient Egyptian art. That was the oldest art known (at the time) and was presumed to have been drawn shortly after the creation of Earth. And people went "look the animals on that art look a lot like animals today ... therefor, no evolution!"

Logged

Science: I'll believe it when I see itFaith: I'll see it when I believe it

In the old days (ie. before we had the fossils) people pointed to ancient Egyptian art. That was the oldest art known (at the time) and was presumed to have been drawn shortly after the creation of Earth. And people went "look the animals on that art look a lot like animals today ... therefor, no evolution!"

But there are a problem in theirs manner to think. Egyptian art are some thousand of years old and evolution take billions of years.

^^ Like I said, at the time (mid to late 19th century), you could still claim Earth was 6000-10000 years old without being laughed at[1]. Now, of course, Darwin made a back of the envelope calculation of Earth's age, based on the erosion of La Manche and arrived at 'at least 480 million years'. So, the basic argument was really that Darwin's 480 M years was wrong ... still, when did theists ever let logic get in the way, right?

As a theist... I used to love the argument "all this couldn't come from nothing, tornado in a junkyard, blah, blah, blah..."

I later learned how flawed those comments were. I also learned creationists preach to their fellow laypeople and not to scientists. Their flawed arguments only stand up to those who don't listen to or pursue the science.

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is. - neopagan

As a theist... I used to love the argument "all this couldn't come from nothing, tornado in a junkyard, blah, blah, blah..."

I later learned how flawed those comments were. I also learned creationists preach to their fellow laypeople and not to scientists. Their flawed arguments only stand up to those who don't listen to or pursue the science.

I love the old fossil/geology one, where they claim fossils are dated by the rock layers they are found in, and that in turn the rock layers are dated by the fossils found in them. Creationists insist this is true, though of course it isn't.

They laugh at the circular logic. And then turn to their bible. Irony at its strongest.

As a theist... I used to love the argument "all this couldn't come from nothing, tornado in a junkyard, blah, blah, blah..."

I later learned how flawed those comments were. I also learned creationists preach to their fellow laypeople and not to scientists. Their flawed arguments only stand up to those who don't listen to or pursue the science.

where are your wife and kids on this one?

Ouch... same place I was before the great awakening.

Logged

If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is. - neopagan

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I love ice cream; in fact, I made some spumoni from scratch last weekend. Unfortunately I can't have any till I'm done with the day's activities and the car's parked in the garage, due to the *um* liberal use of white rum in the mix.

But if I ever attempt to invent a neo-Icelandic ice cream flavour like Vinatarta and Cream, or Harðfiskur Ripple... Make Me stop. Please!

You have to wonder just how much mjød Bjorn the silly viking had in him when he came up with that story.

Silly Bjorn: So, there's this cow, right, and she's licking this dude ...Contrarian Bjorn: A cow licking a guy? Bjorn, I don't want to know about your sex life.Levelheaded Bjorn: Let Bjorn finish the story, Bjorn. So, Bjorn, why was the cow licking the guy?Silly Bjorn: You see, Bjorn, the guy was ... covered in ... honey!Contrarian Bjorn: Honey?! Bjorn, have you looked outside, this side of the 8th century? Seen even a single bee, have you?Silly Bjorn: Nonono, I mean ... ice! Yeah, he was covered in ice, a whole block of ice! And then ...

In the old days (ie. before we had the fossils) people pointed to ancient Egyptian art. That was the oldest art known (at the time) and was presumed to have been drawn shortly after the creation of Earth. And people went "look the animals on that art look a lot like animals today ... therefor, no evolution!"

But there are a problem in theirs manner to think. Egyptian art are some thousand of years old and evolution take billions of years.

Evolution doesn't even take one generation. Environmental factors can change the DNA of living organisms.